XR8 v SS AFM Dyno Run

[4Vman]

So what were the consumption figures.. drum roll please....

[bangm001]

My first car (A VSII SS) manual pulled better 1/4 mile times than both and thats with 168kw or what ever the bucket had! LOL! (Oh and Genie headers- no exhaust)..

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

hell if you just nailed an F6 off the line from idle without any spooling it would probably be a 14 sec car.

You definitely haven't driven one.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by mcnews

You definitely haven't driven one.

Yes i have...

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

So what were the consumption figures.. drum roll please....

The last figures I could make out (geez the audio is crappy) was 9.57L/100Km for the SS and 9.7L/100Km for the XR8.

Those figures were from measuring the amount of fuel each had used at refill and comparing it to kilometres travelled. Apparently the trip computers on both were way out with the Falcon showing a pessimistic figure while the Commodore was overly optimistic.

They were half way through the test and the AFM system is showing negligible advantage over the XR8.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

The last figures I could make out (geez the audio is crappy) was 9.57L/100Km for the SS and 9.7L/100Km for the XR8.

Those figures were from measuring the amount of fuel each had used at refill and comparing it to kilometres travelled. Apparently the trip computers on both were way out with the Falcon showing a pessimistic figure while the Commodore was overly optimistic.

They were half way through the test and the AFM system is showing negligible advantage over the XR8.

The other thing to remember is that the XR8 had the climate control on, the SS didn't have the air conditioner on at all.

I asked them to address this and they have responded to my email. The driver who had been in the SS with no air con up to the half way point is now in the XR8 and doing the same. It doesn't exactly equal out (due to time of day, terrain etc), but it's better than nothing.

So far, the Ford has had more power, more torque, faster acceleration, better braking, quieter interior, more comfortable ride, better sounding exhaust and finally better high beam lights too.

[snappy]

hate to be the fella with the air con on now

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by snappy84

hate to be the fella with the air con on now

Just turn the heat up.....

[snappy]

i dont know how heating/cooling works in cars but i always thought the air con uses fuel/power than the heater would .

[cs123]

Originally Posted by snappy84

i dont know how heating/cooling works in cars but i always thought the air con uses fuel/power than the heater would .

I think climate control AC uses both the AC compressor and heater to regulate the heat.

[GT69]

I'd prefer to use more fuel than freeze to death........

[yift]

a/c on with heater still works the compressor which equates to more fuel being used.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by snappy84

i dont know how heating/cooling works in cars but i always thought the air con uses fuel/power than the heater would .

So have I snappy. don't know if it is based on any truth though but i've always thought that getting heat should be less of a problem than cooling things down in the engine bay of a car.....

This whole test pretty much proves what alot of people on here already know:

1. Car journalists don't get the most ouf of cars. The recorded times are pretty crap compared to what others have seen/done. Not saying this is good or bad, just the way it is.

2. Running in the BOSS motor does make a difference. This car had 6000k on it, and a few more would be welcom. Either way it shows that the 5.4 boss will make its rated FWKW number once run in no probs

3. Holden continues to FIB about its power numbers...FOrd was just over a kw out the holden some 10kw short of its rated number.

4. The nature of the torque delivery and ZF auto make the XR8 slower than you might think moreso than anything wrong with the engine. The journos said it 'seemed slower' than the SS but it was actually quicker.

5. BOSS sounds better (DOH)

6. Don't trust holden's fuel consumption trip computer....always been rubbish, still is.

7. DOD is a DUD....sure it helps but its hardly worth it when you lose power/torque and you have to change your driving style to make it work. Why bother when you bought a V8 to experience it, not 'not' experience it.

8. In a whole host of areas the FG package trumps VE.

WHile i quite like this caradvice mob this test was always a bit predictable to be honest. Apart from super smooth, flat highway cruising at 100km/h DOD doesn't do much of anything anyway. I hope Holden fans follow this moreso than ford fans....they are the ones being shortchanged by a marketing driven Holden.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

This whole test pretty much proves what alot of people on here already know:

1. Car journalists don't get the most out of cars. The recorded times are pretty crap compared to what others have seen/done. Not saying this is good or bad, just the way it is.

rubbish. its all about conditions. those times can only be compared with each other. it amuses me when people say 'my car does a 14 sec 1/4 so it must be quicker than the fg xr8 and ve ss.'

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The other thing to remember is that the XR8 had the climate control on, the SS didn't have the air conditioner on at all.

I asked them to address this and they have responded to my email. The driver who had been in the SS with no air con up to the half way point is now in the XR8 and doing the same. It doesn't exactly equal out (due to time of day, terrain etc), but it's better than nothing.

So far, the Ford has had more power, more torque, faster acceleration, better braking, quieter interior, more comfortable ride, better sounding exhaust and finally better high beam lights too.

Well that doesn't constitute a fair comparison if the XR8 is running with the climate control on and the SS has the A/C off. A/C on uses around 0.8-1l/100km in fuel.

Trust the comparison to be rigged. I'm surprised they aren't driving with the handbrake engaged in the XR8 :

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by prydey

rubbish. its all about conditions. those times can only be compared with each other. it amuses me when people say 'my car does a 14 sec 1/4 so it must be quicker than the fg xr8 and ve ss.'

You are correct prydey...perhaps i should have worded that differently.

What i mean is that people out there read these times (6.7 sec or whatever they did) and as you point out, compare it to out of context times. HOWEVER, journos should either put in more effort and get professionals to do it on better quality surfaces or just not put in teh times at all.

I was trying to point out that because journalists dont' go to this trouble they often don't get the best out of the cars that are theoretically possible. Of course you could resort to take out seats and putting on slick tyres and i'm not suggesting that.

I was simply pointing out that these cars almost certainly if done by people more experienced in launching techniques etc. (and on the right coditions) would go faster. I wasn't implyting the times weren't comparable to each other.

[WASP]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

The last figures I could make out (geez the audio is crappy) was 9.57L/100Km for the SS and 9.7L/100Km for the XR8.

Oh dear.. Great figures for the XR8 considering. Good thing they didn't use an FG XR6T. Just got back from a Melbourne trip averaging around 8.5L/100km with 4 passengers, a/c on and a boot load of lugguage! Even I was surprised and monitoring economy isn't really my thing.

[Swordsman88]

I went to teh ford website to have a look at the rated ADR fuel burn for the XR8 and ford has put up the extra urban and urban fuel burn numbers. This is required by legislation now. The ZF 6sp auto XR8 extra urban number....drum roll please 9.7 l/100km.

Of course this is probably a fluke but it shows its about right. The Holden website doesn't have up highway fuel burn for the SS AFM, but it does claim it does combined cycle 12.9 l/100 versus the 14 l/100 for the XR8. That percentage difference doesn't show up at all based on these numbers.

Oh and just to add further credence to Ford's numbers, they claim 8.8 l/100 for an XR6T 6A highway cycle....not far off what you got CDAA

[Paul]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I was simply pointing out that these cars almost certainly if done by people more experienced in launching techniques etc. (and on the right coditions) would go faster. I wasn't implyting the times weren't comparable to each other.

I did the performance tests for both these cars.

As you'll see in our forthcoming final post, the tests were conducted with 170kg worth of passengers (2 people, plus testing equipment). Both vehicles also had near full tanks of fuel.

That was the fastest both cars were going to go on the day. Having done plenty of this in the past, it's generally routing to launch an automatic.

The Ford had plenty of traction loss off the line, whereas the Holden had next to none.

Our test circuit is flat and made of regular bitumen. It's not a drag strip.

Again, these are real world figures. Unless you drag race your car, you're not going to care how fast is goes down the drag strip. As long as the cars are compared at the same location in the same conditions, it won't make a difference.

We perform all VBOX testing with the same passengers and same fuel load, making the tests as uniform as possible.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Paul

I did the performance tests for both these cars.

As you'll see in our forthcoming final post, the tests were conducted with 170kg worth of passengers (2 people, plus testing equipment). Both vehicles also had near full tanks of fuel.

That was the fastest both cars were going to go on the day. Having done plenty of this in the past, it's generally routing to launch an automatic.

The Ford had plenty of traction loss off the line, whereas the Holden had next to none.

Our test circuit is flat and made of regular bitumen. It's not a drag strip.

Again, these are real world figures. Unless you drag race your car, you're not going to care how fast is goes down the drag strip. As long as the cars are compared at the same location in the same conditions, it won't make a difference.

We perform all VBOX testing with the same passengers and same fuel load, making the tests as uniform as possible.

Thanks for the info Paul. I look forward to your final post to clarify any oustanding questions. The full tanks and load in the cars explains the times recorded in comparison to other publications/claims. As long as these factors are taken into consideration by the readers out there when making comparisons then its all good.

Getting back on topic, will your final post include a full comparison/review of the vehicles themselves or are you focussing on the fuel burn issue....

[snappy]

paul it been very entertaining so thank you .
Great test and review over all .

[snakeoil]

Having owned three B series V8's the fuel economy figures as posted are right
A/C on will add 1 litre per 100klm
I have driven the latest Holdens and was very impressed in a lot of ways but still prefer the grunt of the boss and the fact that I can overload my ute to buggery without turning the thing turning into a banana
However I would add that I hope that Holden is able to survive .They employ a lot of good people and in tough times like these we dont need anymore people in the dole queue
I also dont want see a one make V8 supercar series.
PS I miss Mark Skaife the man we Ford people loved to hate but none the other Holden drivers are doing it for me at this stage

Cheers

[Wally]

I always enjoy reading the responses by the public in bloggs. This one made me giggle

That Holden engine is rubbish!Six litres of wallowing lump of steel.The car handles like a boat on wheels.
I have a mate that works at Holden and I’ve told him the same thing.
The engine has been detuned!?!…I thought it was a “performance” car? 43Kw per litre…..WOW!that’s impressive…..NOT!

Not so much the steel remark, and that he's obviously driven a boat on wheels, but that he has a mate that works at Holden and he told him wot for.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Wally

I always enjoy reading the responses by the public in bloggs. This one made me giggle



Not so much the steel remark, and that he's obviously driven a boat on wheels, but that he has a mate that works at Holden and he told him wot for.

Wally, you'd have to agree that if AFM doesn't show any measurable improvement in fuel economy over the existing product AND suffers a significant drop in performance for its trouble its a pretty big F/Up on Holdens part?

[ZA-289]

Thats a good point about the 43kw per litre. But it is stock and we all know what those LS2's are actually capable of!

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Wally, you'd have to agree that if AFM doesn't show any measurable improvement in fuel economy over the existing product AND suffers a significant drop in performance for its trouble its a pretty big F/Up on Holdens part?

Agreed

[Wally]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Wally, you'd have to agree that if AFM doesn't show any measurable improvement in fuel economy over the existing product AND suffers a significant drop in performance for its trouble its a pretty big F/Up on Holdens part?

For me it's a not a big deal. My main critieria when buying a new car is that it has a V8. I get about 4 l/100km better economy with the 6.0 than I did with the various 5.0s, which is a bonus and the 6.0 is fantastic performance and effortless drive for the price. That doesn't mean that the Boss8 is any worse...my neighbour has me in his sights for an FG8. I can't comment on the DOD engined car because I haven't driven one to compare handling.

Personally I'm not really interested in peak power figures and the like. I'm not about to drag race a daily drive, join the M1 300 Club, etc so me ever using the max power band is pretty remote. I much prefer taking 4 pot engines and rebuilding them for high performance; couldn't care less what a dyno figure is except for tuning and an idea of power loss or gains through modifications.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Wally

For me it's a not a big deal. My main critieria when buying a new car is that it has a V8. I get about 4 l/100km better economy with the 6.0 than I did with the various 5.0s, which is a bonus and the 6.0 is fantastic performance and effortless drive for the price. That doesn't mean that the Boss8 is any worse...my neighbour has me in his sights for an FG8. I can't comment on the DOD engined car because I haven't driven one to compare handling.

Personally I'm not really interested in peak power figures and the like. I'm not about to drag race a daily drive, join the M1 300 Club, etc so me ever using the max power band is pretty remote. I much prefer taking 4 pot engines and rebuilding them for high performance; couldn't care less what a dyno figure is except for tuning and an idea of power loss or gains through modifications.

Nice side step.. ok, if you revisit the original question i posed, and consider it in a broader sense, would you agree holden have stuffed up if they've effectively nobbled their performance sedan for no effective gain in fuel economy? a simple yes or no is ok..

[Wally]

You're spoiling for a fight. I can't agree on something I don't know. I can tell you that it seems to be an attractive option for some of the guys I've talked to who want an eight, but need a convincing argument for their better halves; perhaps Holden have tapped into that dilemna?

Perhaps it's a pup, but the LS2 was originally designed for DOD and it seems a shame for GM not to pursue it, even if it garners extra funding from the US Energy Dept.

As ZA-289 suggested, there is nothing stopping an owner from doing some fairly easy mods to significantly improve power figures.

I'd like to see the power and torque curves of the two engines under test, to see what really gives at cruise. We could be comparing a 2 pole motor to a 4 pole one. As far as I knew the Boss8 relied on revs to provide equivalent ponies and very few of us V8 owners drive around in excess of 1800rpm .

[prydey]

many people get carried away with peak power numbers.

holden wouldn't be too concerned. power and economy seem pretty even with the xr8 and yet it has 30kw less.